Karnataka High Court
Shivananda S/O Basavaraj Abbar vs Suhani D/O Shivanand Abbar on 10 October, 2022
Bench: Jyoti Mulimanipresided Byjmj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
R.P.F.C. NO.100012 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SHIVANANDA
S/O BASAVARAJ ABBAR,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCCU:SERVICE,
R/O SUNAGAR CHAWL,
SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.NIRMALA B.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUHANI
D/O SHIVANAND ABBAR,
AGE:15 YEARS, OCCUP:STUDENT.
2. GANGADHAR U.KOTUR,
AGE:69 YEARS, OCCUP:BUSINESS.
3. VIJAYALAXMI
W/O GANGAHDHAR KOTUR,
AGE:63 YEARS, OCCUP:HOUSEHOLD.
RESPONDENT NO.1 IS MINOR AND
IS REPRESENTED BY HER
GUARDIANS RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3,
ALL ARE R/O GANGADHAR U KOTUR,
KOTUR BUILDING,
2
OPP. NARASIMHADEVAR TEMPLE,
GANDHI CHOWK, DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.NIRMALA DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED:02.12.2020 IN CRL.MISC.NO.121/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 127 OF
CR.P.C.
THIS RPFC POSTED FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.Nirmala.B.G., learned counsel for petitioner and
Ms.Nirmala Doddamani., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.Venkatesh M.Kharvi., for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in
person.
2. The revision petition is listed for admission after
notice to respondents. With the consent of learned counsel the
petition is heard for final hearing.
3. For the sake of convenience, the status of parties
shall be referred to as per their rankings before the Family Court.
The order dated:02.12.2020 passed by the Principal Judge
Family Court, Dharwad in Criminal Misc.No.121/2018 is called in
question in this revision petition whereby, the learned Judge
allowed the petition filed under section 127 of the Criminal
Procedure Code and directed respondent to pay enhanced
monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only)
to the first petitioner till she gets married. It is this order which is
called in question on various grounds as set out in the revision
petition.
4. Learned counsel Smt.Nirmala.B.G., submits that the
order of the Family Court suffers from serious infirmities and the
same is liable to be set aside. She submitted that the Family
Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
available on record.
Next, she submits that the Family Court erred in awarding
monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only)
to first petitioner.
A further submission is made that the Court has failed to
appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the
respondent to substantiate his contention that he is unable to
pay the enhanced maintenance.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that the
respondent is not in a position to pay the enhanced maintenance
as he has borrowed loan from his uncle and he has the
responsibility to meet out his mother's medical expenditure.
Lastly, she submitted that viewed from any angle, the
order of the Family Court is unsustainable in law and the same is
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, she prayed that the revision
petition may be allowed.
5. Ms.Nirmala Doddamani, learned counsel for
respondent justified the order passed by the Family Court.
Next, she submitted that the first petitioner is a minor
daughter. She is entirely depending upon respondent and she
needs financial assistance from respondent.
A further submission is made that learned Judge has
referred to the material on record and has rightly come to
conclusion that respondent has sufficient means and accordingly
directed him to pay the enhanced maintenance.
Lastly, she submitted that the order passed by the Family
Court does not require any interference by this Court and prayed
for dismissal of revision petition.
6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the parties
and perused the records with care.
7. The simple question which requires consideration is
whether learned Judge is justified in directing the respondent to
pay enhanced monthly allowance to the first petitioner and the
order of the Family Court requires any interference?
It is not in dispute that the first petitioner is the minor
daughter of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that a
maintenance case was filed in Crl.Misc.No.203/2013 and the
Family Court vide order dated 22.11.2016 had ordered monthly
maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only)
to the first petitioner.
As matter stood thus, due to change in circumstances,
Section 127 petition was filed seeking enhancement of the
maintenance amount on the ground that the first petitioner is
attending school and she requires financial assistance from her
father. The respondent contended that he is unable to pay the
enhanced maintenance amount as he has availed loan and he
must maintain his aged mother. In this court also, he has
adhered to the said contention.
Counsel Ms.Nirmala Doddamani., in presenting her
argument strenuously urged that the first petitioner is pursuing
her studies and the amount of maintenance was not sufficient to
meet her basic requirements & needs and hence, the first
petitioner was constrained to file a petition under Section 127 of
Cr.P.C. The learned Judge has referred to the material on record
and rightly enhanced the amount.
I have considered the submission made on behalf of
respective parties with utmost care.
Suffice it to note that the first petitioner is pursuing her
school studies and definitely she requires financial assistance
from her father.
Necessities which a father must provide have always
included food, clothing, shelter and usually education. These
days the college/school education is obligatory/essential which
the father should be required to provide to his child since we
have already entered digital age and no child can be left behind.
Every child comes with a hidden talent and it is elders'
responsibility to tap the children to enable them to blossom fully.
Having regard to the minimum requirement to live in the
society by meeting out food, clothing, and day-to-day expenses
and more particularly the education expenses, I am of the view
that the order of maintenance ordered by the Family Court to the
first petitioner is just and proper.
It is perhaps well to observe that the Hindu Law places on
every man a personal obligation to maintain his aged parents, his
virtuous wife and his minor sons and unmarried daughters. It is
needless to observe that father has a legal and moral obligation
to take care of the child.
The learned Judge in extenso referred to the material on
record and justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. I find
no ground to invite interference with the order of the Family
Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
